An artificial intelligence campaign video accused of exploiting Gadi Eisenkot’s dead son has exposed the depths to which Benjamin Netanyahu appears prepared to descend as he fights an election while standing trial for corruption and remaining wanted by the International Criminal Court.
Revulsion at Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer confined to foreign governments, international courts, human rights organisations or overseas critics of Israel’s destruction of Gaza. Increasingly, some of the most damning condemnations of the Israeli prime minister are coming from within Israel itself.
With 96 days remaining before Israel’s October 27 national election and opinion polls placing former military chief Gadi Eisenkot ahead of Netanyahu, the Israeli leader has released what critics have described as one of the most repellent political advertisements ever broadcast in the country.
The short campaign video, created using artificial intelligence and distributed through Netanyahu’s social media accounts, depicts Eisenkot running with his arms extended through an idyllic field towards a young man wearing a shirt bearing the words “Israeli unity”.
At the final moment, Eisenkot turns away from the young man and instead embraces Mansour Abbas, chairman of Ra’am, the United Arab List.
The overt political message is that Eisenkot cannot form a government without Abbas, the Arab parties and Democrats leader Yair Golan. The considerably more disturbing implied message, according to Israeli journalists, former politicians and military figures, is that Eisenkot would abandon not only Israeli unity but the memory of his own dead son in pursuit of political power.
The young man in the original video was widely interpreted as resembling Gal Eisenkot, the opposition leader’s 25 year old son, who was killed during an Israeli military operation in Gaza in December 2023. The flower filled landscape through which Eisenkot runs was similarly interpreted as an imagined representation of heaven or the afterlife.
Netanyahu attended Gal Eisenkot’s funeral. That knowledge made the advertisement appear even more calculated and grotesque to its Israeli critics.
A dead son turned into an election weapon
The young man was never explicitly identified as Eisenkot’s son, and Likud denied that any resemblance was intentional. Yet Netanyahu’s campaign subsequently released an altered version of the video in which the young man had been replaced by a woman, doing little to dispel suspicions about the original production.
The Times of Israel reported that journalists Guy Peleg and Barak Seri were among those who believed the figure had been designed to evoke Gal Eisenkot.
The choice of setting intensified that interpretation. Eisenkot is shown running through a beautiful and apparently celestial field towards a young man of roughly his son’s age. Just before reaching him, he changes direction and embraces an Arab politician.
The implication was not merely that Eisenkot might cooperate with Arab parties after the election. It suggested that he would symbolically cast aside his dead son, his family’s sacrifice and the unity of Jewish Israel in order to obtain power with Arab support.
Gal Eisenkot was killed on December 7, 2023, while serving as a reservist in Gaza. Two of Gadi Eisenkot’s nephews were also killed during the war.
These losses have become an important part of Eisenkot’s public identity. They have given his criticisms of Netanyahu’s leadership a personal authority that the prime minister has struggled to counter. Eisenkot is not simply a former general attacking the government from a comfortable distance. His family paid a direct and devastating price for the war overseen by Netanyahu.
The artificial intelligence video appeared to target precisely that source of moral authority.
Likud accused its critics of inventing a shocking conspiracy theory to distract from the party’s claim that Eisenkot could not govern without Arab support. Nevertheless, the rapid replacement of the young man demonstrated that Netanyahu’s campaign understood that the original image had become politically toxic.
The revised version could not erase what had already been published. It merely confirmed that the video had crossed a boundary visible even to Israelis accustomed to Netanyahu’s aggressive and frequently inflammatory political campaigning.
Condemnation from inside Israel
The significance of the controversy lies not only in the obscenity of the advertisement but in the identity of those condemning it.
Esther Solomon, writing in an election dispatch for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, described it as “one of the more repulsive campaign videos ever broadcast here”. Her commentary portrayed the episode as a clarifying moment, exposing how deeply Netanyahu is prepared to scrape the political barrel as his hold on power becomes increasingly uncertain.
Haaretz reported that the video had triggered outrage over its apparent use of Eisenkot’s bereavement.
Former Likud minister Limor Livnat called the advertisement “pathetic” and asked Netanyahu: “How low can you go? Shame on you.”
Former Israeli military spokesman Avi Benayahu described it as insulting and humiliating, warning Netanyahu that it would ultimately damage him. Israeli broadcaster i24NEWS documented the domestic backlash and Likud’s decision to release a revised version.
The condemnation was notable because it did not originate with Palestinians, international activists or Netanyahu’s traditional opponents abroad. It came from prominent figures within Israel’s political, military and media establishment, including a former minister from Netanyahu’s own Likud party.
For years, Netanyahu has attempted to present international condemnation of his government as evidence of hostility towards Israel. This time, Israelis required no outside institution to explain what they were seeing. They saw a political campaign apparently turning a father’s grief into an electoral weapon while simultaneously using an Arab politician as a symbol of betrayal.
The episode challenges the familiar attempt to dismiss every attack upon Netanyahu as an attack upon Israel. Many Israelis themselves have looked at the campaign and found it abhorrent.
A prime minister facing criminal proceedings at home and abroad
Netanyahu is entering the election not merely as a divisive incumbent blamed for military, political and intelligence failures. He is attempting to retain power while standing trial for corruption in Israel and remaining wanted under an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court.
Israeli police began investigating Netanyahu’s conduct almost a decade ago. He was formally indicted in November 2019, and his trial began in May 2020. He became the first serving Israeli prime minister to stand trial on criminal charges.
The proceedings involve three separate cases.
In Case 1000, prosecutors allege that Netanyahu and his family received expensive cigars, champagne and other gifts from wealthy businessmen, including Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan and Australian billionaire James Packer. Netanyahu is accused of fraud and breach of trust over allegations that he used his public position to assist Milchan’s interests.
Case 2000 concerns recorded discussions between Netanyahu and Arnon Mozes, publisher of the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. Prosecutors allege that they discussed the possibility of more favourable newspaper coverage for Netanyahu in return for measures that would restrict the growth of rival publication Israel Hayom. Netanyahu faces charges of fraud and breach of trust in that case.
Case 4000 is the most serious. Prosecutors accuse Netanyahu of granting regulatory advantages worth approximately 1.8 billion shekels, or around $500 million, to the telecommunications company Bezeq. In return, they allege, Netanyahu sought favourable coverage for himself and his wife, Sara, from the Walla news website, which was controlled by Bezeq’s former chairman.
Netanyahu is charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust in Case 4000.
He has pleaded not guilty and repeatedly denounced the prosecution as a politically motivated witch hunt conducted by the media, police and judiciary. No verdict has been reached, and Netanyahu remains entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Nevertheless, the trial remains active after years of hearings, interruptions and delays. Israel will therefore hold its October election while its prime minister continues to answer corruption charges first filed nearly seven years earlier. Reuters provides a detailed account of the three corruption cases.
Netanyahu’s legal exposure also extends beyond Israel.
On November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant after judges found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu bore criminal responsibility for the war crime of using starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts against Gaza’s civilian population.
Netanyahu has not been tried or convicted by the ICC. Israel rejects the allegations and disputes the court’s jurisdiction. The warrant nevertheless remains outstanding, with Netanyahu officially listed by the ICC as an accused person at large.
He could consequently face arrest if he enters a country prepared to execute the warrant.
The election is therefore about considerably more than whether Netanyahu can preserve Likud’s parliamentary strength. It concerns whether a leader facing corruption proceedings at home and allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity abroad can once again use fear, racial division and personal vilification to escape political accountability.
His struggle to remain prime minister has become inseparable from his struggle against the institutions attempting to hold him accountable. Critics have consequently questioned whether his attacks upon judges, prosecutors, journalists and independent state institutions are driven by ideology alone or by his personal interest in remaining beyond the reach of meaningful accountability.
Against this background, the video attacking Eisenkot assumes an even more sinister character. Rather than answering for his record, Netanyahu’s campaign has attempted to turn an opponent’s dead son into an electoral weapon and cooperation with Arab citizens into an accusation of national betrayal.
Fear of the Arabs
The advertisement also exposes the racial politics underpinning Netanyahu’s latest election strategy.
Palestinian citizens of Israel make up approximately one fifth of the population, yet Netanyahu has repeatedly portrayed their political representatives as illegitimate participants in national government. The possibility that an opposition coalition might depend upon Arab majority parties is presented not as an ordinary consequence of parliamentary democracy but as a threat to the state.
This is the political calculation behind the embrace with Mansour Abbas. Netanyahu wants centre right voters to believe that supporting Eisenkot would allow Arab parties and the Israeli left to control the government.
The depiction of Abbas is therefore central to the advertisement. He is not shown debating Eisenkot, negotiating with him or agreeing upon a political programme. His embrace is itself presented as an act of betrayal.
The video equates cooperation with an Arab politician with the abandonment of Israeli unity and, through the apparent Gal Eisenkot imagery, with the abandonment of the Jewish dead.
The attack is especially cynical because Netanyahu and senior Likud figures have previously explored cooperation with Abbas.
After the advertisement appeared, Eisenkot’s Yashar party released a compilation of Likud politicians praising the Ra’am chairman. It included current ministers describing Abbas as moderate and discussing the possibility of working with him. Abbas has also said Netanyahu invited him to the prime minister’s residence several times while attempting to secure his political support.
Ra’am later entered the coalition led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, helping to remove Netanyahu from office temporarily. Since then, Abbas has been recast by Netanyahu’s camp as proof that any alternative government would be dependent upon supposedly disloyal forces.
Yashar responded by arguing that Netanyahu’s own government depends upon parties that are either formally non Zionist or deeply hostile to obligations imposed upon other Israeli citizens. His coalition partners include ultra Orthodox parties that have fought to preserve military service exemptions for religious students even as other Israeli families have lost sons and daughters in successive wars.
The contradiction is glaring. Cooperation with an Arab politician becomes treason when Netanyahu’s opponents contemplate it, while reliance upon parties resisting military service is treated as legitimate when it keeps Netanyahu in office.
Netanyahu turns to obscenity as the polls turn against him
The video emerged as Netanyahu faced one of the most serious electoral challenges of his career.
Israel will vote on October 27 in its first national election since the Hamas led attacks of October 7, 2023 and the wars that followed in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.
Surveys suggest Netanyahu’s coalition of nationalist, religious and far right parties could lose its majority, although the fragmented opposition may still struggle to assemble the 61 parliamentary seats required to govern. Reuters reported that Netanyahu’s previously formidable reputation as Israel’s guardian of security was badly damaged by the October 7 attack and its aftermath.
A recent Channel 12 poll projected 24 seats for Eisenkot’s Yashar party and 23 for Likud. Other surveys have similarly placed Yashar narrowly ahead, while Eisenkot has also led Netanyahu when voters were asked which man they preferred as prime minister.
Recent Israeli polling has nevertheless shown that an opposition government may remain dependent upon the participation or outside support of Arab parties.
That parliamentary arithmetic explains Netanyahu’s strategy. Unable to rely entirely upon his security record, he is returning to a familiar politics of fear, division and racial suspicion.
Eisenkot’s momentum represents a particular danger because he cannot easily be depicted as weak on national security. He is a former Israeli military chief, a veteran commander and a security hawk whose immediate family has suffered grievous losses in the Gaza war.
He can challenge Netanyahu from within the militarised political culture that the prime minister has long treated as his own territory.
Netanyahu’s response has therefore been to attack Eisenkot’s character and question his loyalty. The flower field video was designed to suggest that beneath the former general’s patriotic image lies a politician willing to betray Jewish voters, cooperate with Arabs and abandon even the memory of his son.
Instead, it has exposed something about Netanyahu himself.
It presents an incumbent prime minister, pursued over alleged corruption at home and wanted by an international court over alleged atrocities in Gaza, reaching once again for division and personal degradation as instruments of political survival.
Removing Netanyahu will not remove Netanyahuism
The condemnation should not be mistaken for evidence that Israel is preparing for a fundamental transformation.
Eisenkot is no peace candidate. As a military commander, he became associated with the “Dahiyeh doctrine”, which advocated the use of overwhelming and explicitly disproportionate force against areas used by hostile armed groups, including the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
He has defended an uncompromising Israeli military posture and dismissed demands for a Palestinian state as irrelevant. Reuters has documented how Eisenkot’s hawkish security record has helped him appeal to voters disillusioned with Netanyahu.
A post Netanyahu government would not automatically end the occupation, recognise Palestinian rights or reverse the militarism that has shaped Israeli politics for decades. It might change Israel’s tone and improve relations with foreign allies without confronting the deeper structures that produced the destruction of Gaza.
Netanyahuism would also survive Netanyahu. Millions of Israelis continue to support Likud and its far right coalition partners. Years of incitement against Palestinians, Arab citizens, journalists, judges, human rights organisations and political opponents cannot be undone through a single election.
The damage extends beyond one leader. Netanyahu did not create every form of racism, militarism or extremism within Israeli society, although he has repeatedly exploited, legitimised and intensified them.
His eventual departure would therefore represent the beginning of a struggle over Israel’s political future, rather than its conclusion.
Nevertheless, removing Netanyahu remains a necessary first step if Israel is to begin any process of political or moral rehabilitation.
The artificial intelligence video provides a condensed portrait of his politics: grief converted into propaganda, Arab participation presented as betrayal, political opponents depicted as internal enemies and the dead drawn into the campaign without dignity or restraint.
That Israelis themselves have recoiled matters. Their reaction demonstrates that Netanyahu’s methods have become too repellent for even some figures within the country’s political and military establishment to excuse.
Netanyahu may yet survive. He has repeatedly escaped political defeats that appeared inevitable, while his corruption trial has continued without reaching a verdict and the ICC warrant has remained unenforced.
But a campaign willing to publish imagery widely understood as invoking a rival’s dead son has revealed more than political desperation.
It has revealed obscenity as a method of government.